[RTTY] CQWW exchange

[Robert Chudek - K0RC]

Whoa! This message got out of the gate before I was finished reading all the 
queued messages!

I see there is some debate about the {CALL} in the macro string I suggested. 
My thought is {CALL} is important not for the specific station you have just 
qso'ed, but rather everyone else in the pile up of calling stations. 
Everyone sees you are confirming a contact with someone other than them! If 
I see "TU K0RF W6WRT CQ" after sending you my report, then I know Chuck has 
(once again) overpowered my signal and grabbed your discriminator instead of 
me!

Of course the down side of this is you slow down your rate a significant 
percentage.

The Hyphen debate WAS settled and including it was the appropriate thing to 
do. You missed the memo. As Kok said, it reduces the TX string length by 
14%. This isn't the only reason I use the hyphen. It also reduces by 14% the 
possibility a QRN or QRM will kill the SHIFT character. It's not there to 
kill in the first place.

Here's another example from my practical standpoint... My car is parked in 
the garage, face in. I put it in gear to leave. I move forward 14 inches. 
Then I put it in reverse and back out of the garage. If my wife had parked 
less than 14 inches from the wall in front, I'm going to have a "hit". My 
first motion is useless and wasted activity.

Convince me otherwise.  :-)

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" <k0rc at pclink.com>
To: "Claude Du Berger" <duberger.miousse81 at globetrotter.net>; 
<dezrat1242 at yahoo.com>; "RTTY" <rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQWW exchange


Merci Claude!

You're absolutely right. The confirmation macro (usually F3) should start
with either TU or QSL and then whatever the operator deems "important".

{TX} TU {CALL} {MYCALL} CQ {RX}

That's all that is needed when using N1MM in running mode.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Claude Du Berger" <duberger.miousse81 at globetrotter.net>
To: <dezrat1242 at yahoo.com>; "RTTY" <rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQWW exchange


> It would be nice if the RUN station reply with the
> TU or QSL  at the beginning of his confirmation, this way the S&P
> station could move faster... not waiting for the new way
> to reply giving the callsign twice...
>
> 73,
> Claude Du Berger VE2FK
> ve2fk at arrl.net
> http://www.contestgroupduquebec.com/
>
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: Bill, W6WRT
>  To: RTTY
>  Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:11 AM
>  Subject: Re: [RTTY] CQWW exchange
>
>
>  I didn't notice this at all. To me, the confirmation is either QSL or
>  TU, and I wait for one or the other on every QSO. During the recent
>  contest I don't believe I had a single QSO without receiving one or
>  the other. Are you (Roger) looking for something more than that?
>
>  And I agree totally about the 599. Complete waste of time on RTTY. In
>  a CW or phone contest it does have some value because it sets the
>  rhythm and tone for the report which follows, but RTTY has no such
>  need. I think it's just a carryover from other contests.
>
>  73, Bill W6WRT
>
>
>  ------------ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------
>
>
>  On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:55:47 +0000 (GMT), Roger Cooke
>  <g3ldi at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>  >, it really was amazing how many stations did not stay around for
> confirmation
>  _______________________________________________
>  RTTY mailing list
>  RTTY at contesting.com
>  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty